Aaron Keith Harris
2007-06-29 07:00:00.0
Current rank: Not ranked

BALTIMORE -

Whenever a politician starts talking about fairness, it’s a good time to reach for your copy of the Bill of Rights to check those rights said politician wants to infringe.

This week, it’s free speech.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told The Hill. “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The Federal Communications Commission used to enforce the Fairness Doctrine at radio stations to ensure balanced discussions of public affairs. Its abandonment in 1987 allowed the rise of Rush Limbaugh and dozens of other talk radio shows, most of which also feature conservative hosts.

It’s a bit of a mystery why liberal hosts, either on their own or as part of the recently bankrupt Air America network, have met with less success. But a free market, whether in radio programs or in ideas, can often yield results unsuitable to certain people.

That’s what happens in a free society. But our current political class can’t handle it. Its members pretend to revere the First Amendment, but as calls to revive the Fairness Doctrine show, are notoriously uncomfortable with free speech.

The FCC’s arbitrary, unclear rules on indecency have stifled speech on television and radio ever since Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction. Proposals to reign in the Internet or regulate video games remain disturbingly popular. And don’t even get me started on McCain-Feingold, which is plainly unconstitutional.

Some House Republicans, led by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., prepare to fight the Fairness Doctrine with a bill to codify the FCC’s regulatory decision to drop it. But House Republican proposals don’t count for much with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in charge.

One would hope the likelihood of a renewed Fairness Doctrine being challenged in the courts — probably successfully, but you never know — would be enough to deter Congress from following through.

But, as we saw during the Don Imus incident, many on the left think the FCC’s duty is to police what is broadcast, because the airwaves belong to the public and the broadcasters are mere licensees.

Some merit exists in that position, but we don’t apply the same standards in similar cases. Streets and sidewalks are public, but we don’t curtail speech on t-shirts or bumper stickers. Local governments often grant cable television, telephone and Internet access companies monopolies, but we shouldn’t curtail speech in those media either.

So why is the Fairness Doctrine even being discussed?

Because supporters from both parties of the president’s immigration bill are catching hell from constituents, and blaming talk radio is an easy way to change the subject to anything but the details of a bill that would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.

Even the supposedly ultra-conservative Sen. Trent Lott, R.-Miss., is in on the act. “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem,” Lott told reporters while discussing opposition to the bill.

But Dick Durbin wants us to hear both sides of the story, right? We’re hearing a lot from the White House, the Congress and the old school Washington media about why the president’s bill is good, so where are we going to hear the other side if not from talk radio and other non-traditional media streams?

It ought to rankle that politicians lacking the courage to confront honestly the issue of an open border with Mexico would presume to claim the right to determine how the rest of us talk about it.

Aaron Keith Harris writes about politics, the media, pop culture and music and is a regular contributor to National Review Online and Bluegrass Unlimited. He can be reached at aaronkeithharris@gmail.com.